[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

ernie_lynch - Member
...If Scotland votes yes and separates itself from the rest of the UK life for the people of Scotland will, I have no doubt, carry on pretty much the same - nothing terrible will happen.

Slowly, too slowly probably for people to notice as it happens, Scotland will fall behind...

Which takes me back to the question I asked earlier.

What characteristic of Scotland makes us incapable of running our own country for the benefit of our own people?

Well it's a stupid question. The people of Scotland are just as capable as anyone else to run their own country.

Do you think how prosperous a country is depends on how capable its people are at running their country? FFS

Predicting the future for iS just involves stating which way you would vote
Perhaps rUK leaves the EU and all the multinational companies move to iS, leaving the rUK behind - no one knows for sure.

the people of Scotland will be every bit as dissatisfied with their government as everyone else in the Western world is

I would happily wager they will like the govt they get more than the one they have imposed on them

I would further wager is you looked at opinion polls they like Holyrood more than they like Westminster as well

The (bullies at the) Univ of Stirling have yet to swallow the message

It is therefore not immediately clear whether, or in what way, an independent Scotland might be able to exercise a sustainable fiscal policy that would also drive a significantly different inequality path from the rest of the UK, or indeed from the rest of the EU

Junkyard - lazarus
...Possibly but it is hard to see a situation where they will be as dissatisfied with a government they VOTED for as they are with one they DID NOT vote for
I would happily wager they will like the govt they get more than the one they have imposed on them...

That says it better than I did.

I'll come back to this thread in a couple of weeks to see how the fear, smear, and sneer campaign is going. 🙂

If Scotland votes yes and separates itself from the rest of the UK life for the people of Scotland will, I have no doubt, carry on pretty much the same - [b]nothing terrible will happen.[/b]

Slowly, too slowly probably for people to notice as it happens, Scotland will fall behind. The promises and commitments that were made by the nationalists will be forgotten and ignored.

And, and this is the important bit, the people of Scotland will be every bit as dissatisfied with their government as everyone else in the Western world is.

Surely that is the "terrible" bit, well at least the very sad bit. People are being duped on the basis of flawed arguments, false promises and outright deceit.

epicyclo - Member

Which takes me back to the question I asked earlier.

What characteristic of Scotland makes us incapable of running our own country for the benefit of our own people?

Is it that you are a nation of drunks? 😕

In the meantime, you can come up we answers to Ernie's basic questions.

Like Vladimir and Estragon, we are still waiting......

^^^ waiting for godot reference

Again no one can predict the future and you can easily create scenarios where iS thrives and where rUK flounders. Leaves EU , ends immigration, inward investment stops, stuff moves North to scotland, brain drain etc. Its not hard to predict doom but there are LOTS of ifs in both scenarios.
There are no facts here just guesses motivated by your own politics and view re union good or bad.

It is pretty hard to accept they will dislike a govt they vote for more than one they dont vote for

If Scotland votes yes and separates itself from the rest of the UK life for the people of Scotland will, I have no doubt, carry on pretty much the same - nothing terrible will happen.

Slowly, too slowly probably for people to notice as it happens, Scotland will fall behind. The promises and commitments that were made by the nationalists will be forgotten and ignored.

And, and this is the important bit, the people of Scotland will be every bit as dissatisfied with their government as everyone else in the Western world is.

I don't see how the standard of living will erode,but with regards to government at least we will have more control over one we voted for,especially given the regular coalitions we have.And I wonder how life for ordinary working people in England will be by this point(the one bit of guilt I have in voting yes.)

Because while we won't be much different England will be.
We will still be looking after our needy, frail and incapable, while yours will be victimised and starving to death. I suppose that solves the problem though.
We'll still be in the EU, you probably won't be.

I refer to you why kids leave home when it wont be that much different costs more and involves fannying around.

Cherrypicking quotes again? The conclusion of that paper, in full:

An independent Scotland would gain access to a wider range of fiscal levers with which it could tackle inequality, notably around taxation and welfare spending. There is certainly scope for significant reform of the UK’s employment tax and benefits policy (Mirlees et al., 2011). These reforms could potentially include a restructuring of income tax rates and reliefs, and simplification of the benefits system to improve work incentives, and some such reforms could be structured to have redistributive effects.
There is some evidence that the Scottish electorate would be more supportive
of such reform compared to voters in other parts of the UK.

However, given that many of the drivers of inequality are linked to global trends in technology, trade, and family formation practices, there are likely to be limits to the extent that a small open economy can mitigate them. Scottish independence would provide opportunities, but it would also
come with constraints.

Doesn't say quite what you'd like it to say does it?

But here's a key point from earlier in the report:

The Coalition Government’s policy of welfare reform and benefit cuts is likely to reverse the trend of static (or declining) net income inequality

Which reaffirms what I was saying up the page- iScotland doesn't [i]need[/i] to implement change in order to improve things over the UK position. It just needs to stop implementing the radical changes of the UK. I don't think we should settle for that, we can do better but the first step is just to stop doing worse.

Good news is that in the UK income inequality is already getting better. So first step (tick), economic recovery better than expected (albeit with rel weak foundations), inflation low, wages about to surpass inflation (despite on-going declines in productivity - sshh), labour market improving etc. Of course debt is still rising, banks are still weak and policy mix need re-balancing but at least we have all parties "committed" to real policies instead of the fantasies that Ernie noted. So who has made the genuine first step? Don't worry, as noted above, the cold shower of reality will hit soon enough.

I am glad you are reading the stuff NW though, worth linking/referring to it. The point about the willingness of the Scottish population to accept greater redistributive policies is a good and valid one (despite the constraints on delivery). The other points about what needs to be done to reform fiscal policy are also valid for rUK. They are not Scotland specific. Let the higher candidates tackle NIESR as a little extra this weekend!

And I wonder how life for ordinary working people in England will be by this point

I thought you weren't allowed to say England......shouldn't it be "I wonder how life for ordinary working people living under Westminster rule will be" ? I mean it's not like this is a Scotland verses England thing, is it ?

I do take your point though - the future for working people in the UK does not look rosy. At least not while the neoliberal consensus continues to exist. The problem is the Labour Party, or more precisely the lack of a mass party which represents the interests of ordinary working people. And the EU.

Scotland separating itself from the rest of the UK will not solve these twin problems and in fact will simply make the situation worse, for all parties concerned.

Although to be fair the nationalists are not claiming that they will tackle those problems - they simply fail to recognise them as being problems.

.

...but with regards to government at least we will have more control over one we voted for

Your politicians might be geographically closer but that's as far as it goes they will be just as remote and divorced from the people they purport to represent as any other, and powerless. In fact even more powerless.

[i][b]"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."[/i][/b]

Tony Benn (who incidentally was half Scots and supported Better Together)

teamhurtmore - Member

Good news is that in the UK income inequality is already getting better.

Yep, and bad news as per your link is that the Coalition are doing their best to reverse that.

As yet there is no evidence for that, but we shall see. In fact the evidence is exactly the opposite but I would hesitate to draw too much in terms of causation. But the ONS makes specific reference to coalition policies that have reduced income inequality especially at the lower end as well as external factors especially at the higher end.

BTW, NW as you have highlighted, always happy to post/link/refer to articles that challenge my views (eg NIESR) and those like the BOD that simply make me laugh (and cry).

Austerity is not a policy it's an ideology. Osborne has confirmed this by stating clearly that it is not a temporary measure.

Good news is that in the UK income inequality is already getting better.

Do you really believe this? Temporary blips based on an economic crash are hardly evidence of changing the long-term trend.

[img] [/img]

BTW, NW as you have highlighted, always happy to post/link/refer to articles that challenge my views (eg NIESR) and those like the BOD that simply make me laugh (and cry).

Perhaps they are just returning to old fashioned Keynesian economics - run budget surpluses in the good times and deficits in the bad times, if you believe that gov has a role in managing aggregate demand.

Tories and Labour are both now committed to delivering that rare beast - a budget surplus. Austerity is the means to an end, not the end in itself. The fact that we are needing to deal with a high deficit at exactly the wrong time in the cycle is another story altogether.

To deliberately misquote Blair, perhaps we are now all Keynesians? Or may be that's just me half way through Skiddelsky's tome on Keynes at the moment!

Grum, the fact that the poster neither reflects long nor short term trends was addressed yesterday on another thread.

I thought you weren't allowed to say England......shouldn't it be "I wonder how life for ordinary working people living under Westminster rule will be" ?

Well, I thought it better to make the distinction as we wouldn't all be living under Westminster's government, would we? I don't see how having a Government making all the decisions in Scotland and with left of centre policies,as any Government in Scotland should really be based on the electorate, can possibly be as remote as the Tories and their pets are from us and our voting behaviour. As for Tony Benn, he was far too decent a man to support what better together has become. In fact as a nationalist,I am glad he couldn't be the figurehead. 😉

Grum, the fact that the poster neither reflects long nor short term trends was addressed yesterday on another thread.

You'll have to forgive me for not accepting you just repeatedly stating your opinion as any kind of evidence.

I appreciate that - hence the link to external sources yesterday. They can't be trashed so readily (eg Harvard, ONS), always helps to have the facts on your side!!!

Cheery picked ones and Hubris 😉

Good news is that in the UK income inequality is already getting better.

Your anti-English sentiment is showing.

Weird - are you suggesting that Scots are children living under the care and protection of their English parents?

I appreciate that - hence the link to external sources yesterday. They can't be trashed so readily (eg Harvard, ONS), always helps to have the facts on your side!!!

I seem to remember the link you posted said the exact opposite of what you claimed it did.

Well your memory must be failing you.

(Lib Dems are part of the Coalition if I am not mistaken, oh and according to ONS one segment has definitely not got poorer but I appreciate that this does not fit the narrative. I would link but lunch is more pressing and it's fun to dig it out yourself)

Wow your good with analogies aren't you

It is not the greatest analogy*, would you like me to say this again as it may well be my fault you failed to notice it first time 😉

Still not your best sarcasm [ nor mine] 🙂

* i think you got the point though

teamhurtmore - Member

Grum, the fact that the poster neither reflects long nor short term trends was addressed yesterday on another thread.

Here is the long term trend.

[img] [/img]

Today we have the same level of inequality between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of society as we did a hundred years ago. Thanks to the policies which have been pursued since 1979.

And btw that graph doesn't just plot the fall and rise of economic inequality, it also conversely plots the rise and fall of trade union power and influence. Coincidence ? .........is it ****.

"Share of all income received by top 1%"

Dropped to an all time low throughout the sixties and seventies eh?

You mean the exact time when all the high earners pissed off abroad?

[i]"'Taxman' was when I first realised that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes. It was and still is typical."
[/i]

Look what happened when 'Fatch lowered tax rates and they started coming back!

And to keep it on topic - I presume Scottish nationalist hero Shaun Connery is planning to come back and start paying his taxes under an independent Salmond?

I'm sorry Z-11, are you disputing how economic inequality fell in the early half of the twentieth century and then bounced back in the last 35 years ?

Or did you just want to make the point that Thatcher had been particularly kind to the super rich ?

The super rich still avoid paying taxes btw.

The super rich still avoid paying taxes btw.

But this is the very point, economic inequality never actually fell except on paper - the rich people were still rich, the poor people still poor - its just that the rich ones pissed off abroad so they didn't get taxed and therefore didn't show up on the statistics anymore, hence 'inequality dropped' !

Look what happened when 'Fatch lowered tax rates and they started coming back!

Yes,drunk with power and with their numbers swollen the Tories set about selling the country to their mates and putting the working class into a position that they could do nothing about it. Is that what you mean? Cameron is just jealous because there is nothing left to sell except the NHS and education.

You do talk nonsense Z-11 🙂

The rich always avoid paying taxes. Nothing has changed in the last 35 years, apart from the fact that they've got even wealthier. Even the ones we're supposed to admire like Richard Branson live in tax exile.

the rich ones pissed off abroad

not your best scribble

selling the country to their mates

They must have had a lot of mates, two million people bought BT shares, 1.5 million British Gas, 1.5 million bought their council houses

Yes they let the ones daft enough to vote for them have the crumbs from the banquet.

Before shafting them.

So Grum, obviously no need to apologise 😉 but I hope Ernie's graph will help you understand the LT trends this time, or is he talking rubbish too? And go back even further into 17-19C and II was even worse. In fact the late 60s and early 70s were more of an anomaly statistically than the norm.

Ernie, thanks for your version of the graph. But while II rose under Mrs T she cannot "claim" full responsibility, indeed nor can her party! Similar trends occurred under different governments.

And Scottish trends follow rUk very closely, so so much for being different. Of course the impact of NS Oil and it's impact on £ didn't help the transition from failing heavy industry in the 1970s. Oil is not always the bonus it's is expected to be and imagine if the economy is even more exposed to it - perish the thought!

Next up - THM explains how black is actually white.

We'll if you can explain to me where I was wrong in saying that the LT trends in income inequality were a fall, stability, then a rise and a fall (not shown on the graph) ie, coming back to levels seen previously in history (rather than pretending that taking the late 70s to mid 2000s was long term) then I will happily accept that you are correct. Until then black remains black and clearly so in my mind.

To make it easier for you

teamhurtmore - Member
US and UK trends are quite similar but not perfectly so. Of course, income inequality increased over a period between mid 70s and roughly the crisis. But that does not mean that the the LT has been upwards. We have returned and fallen back from inequality levels that have been seen in history over several cycles. It's not a brand new phenomenon.

"Black is Black, ooh, ooh, I want my baby back" (harking back to long term trends)

There's no clear definition of "long term" in this situation, you're both daft if you think you can just claim a timescale and have it accepted that you're right, since either 30 years or 300 could be reasonably called long term.

Reminds me of this:

[img] [/img]

I don't think most people would bring up stuff from more than two centuries as a useful part of the discussion.

Nice swerve Grum.

you're both daft if you think you can just claim a timescale and have it accepted that you're right,

Hence as I am not daft, I chose my words carefully ie, this doesn't not mean that the LT trend has been upwards. In the original thread I was rejecting exactly that hypothesis.

Pay inequality??? More nat lies. How about this from the ONS.

[i]In April 2011, the average full-time employee in the UK earned around £12.62 per hour excluding overtime, a cash increase of 226% since 1986 when the average wage was £3.87 per hour. After adjusting for price increases over that time, full-time employees were on average 62% better off in 2011 than in 1986.
Generally the higher earners did better, with the top 1% having the biggest increase between 1986 and 2011, at 117%. The top 10% saw an increase of 81%, while the bottom 10% had a 47% increase. Those at the very bottom did better, with the bottom 1% having a 70% increase.
Over the period since 1998 – in other words, since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage – those at the very bottom end of the earnings distribution have done best, with the bottom 1% having a real increase of 51%, compared with an increase of 30% for the top 1%.[/i]

So the rich have been getting richer but so has everyone else.

Good point z11, remind me Why council houses were sold...

Pay inequality??? More nat lies.

Why don't you read what you copy and paste ?

[i]Generally the higher earners did better, with [b]the top 1% having the biggest increase[/b] between 1986 and 2011, at 117%. The top 10% saw an increase of 81%, while the bottom 10% had a 47% increase. Those at the very bottom did better, with the bottom 1% having a 70% increase.[/i]

So the gap between the the top 1% and everyone else is growing. The gap between the top 1% and the bottom 1% is also growing, it's just not growing quite as fast as the bottom 10%, but it's still growing.

Growing income inequality is real, it's not a lie as you claim.

Why the fascination with top earners doing so well when the poorest 1% are seeing a 70% increase in wages and that is inflation adjusted as well. Would the figures only have been acceptable if the richest had seen their wages fall? The figures show that everyone is better off in the UK since 1986. No doubt some negative nat will be along to put a negative spin on these figures.

Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).

ONS

No doubt some negative nat will be along to put a negative spin on these figures.

Is that suppose to be some sort of joke ?

Income inequality has been growing for 35 years, it's [u]you[/u] who's putting a spin on it by pretending that the richest 1% aren't receiving an ever increasing share of the nation's wealth.

Forget the nasty nats, let's see what the Scottish government says

The following chart, using DWP figures, shows that inequality in Scotland increased gradually between 2004 and 2009, and then decreased suddenly after the financial crisis. It also illustrates that current inequality levels are now similar to those seen in the late 1990s.

April 2014.

So what if they are? If everybody else is better off as well what is the problem? Why focus on the top 1% when the poorest 1% are 70% better off. Typical negative nat tactics.

Wow, this is too confusing.

Why focus on the top 1% when the poorest 1% are 70% better off.

That's the second time that you've said that. Why do you keep mentioning that the poorest 1% are 70% better off but not mention that the top 1% are 117% better off, according to your own figures.

It's almost as if you're trying to put a spin on it.....the very thing you're accusing the "negative nats" of doing.

The richest 1% already had more money than they could spend. The poorest 1% will have greatly benefited from the 70% wage increase. The fact that you can't see that shows just how out of touch with reality nats are. It is no wonder that the majority of people in Scotland do not want independence.

Which is why no-one needs food banks any more.

Oh wait...

fasternotfatter - Member

The richest 1% already had more money than they could spend.

And according to you it's OK that they have had a 117% increase in their income from 1986 and 2011, [u]more[/u] than anyone else ?

Seriously ?

Or is this some sort of wind up ?

I think we may have got off topic here folk

THM is correct that since the recession inequality has fallen we cannot debate actual facts.
However none of this is really by Tory design it is has been caused by three major factors

1.We all have less. When this happens the gap shrinks as the rich tend to loose more.
2. Labour tax rise for to 50% - reduced to 45 % by the Tories but still a rise from the 40%
3. Lib dem policies re threshold of tax giving the poorer more money

Its not like reducing this is a Tory ideological aim but it clearly happened in the short term [ assuming we can call since the recession the short term] due to the economic crash
Interestingly poverty has also reduced due to how it is calculated
I would argue both are largely very short term blips/artefacts but they have occurred.

I dont care what you want to say about long term trends but the reduction generated by labour/left wing polices has been eradicated by right wing Thather type drip down capitalism [ I include Nu Labour in this]. I see little either side of the issue [ independence] to change that massively but iS will at least try to redress this [ as indeed will the Lib Dems if they are in power]
The tories wont - Who knows what red ed will do but i doubt it will be very red .

1.We all have less. When this happens the gap shrinks as the rich tend to loose more.

I'm not totally sure this is true. If you're at the top end, you've done ok.

Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

Nice quote but the stats say differently.

There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These
changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
• Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%)

[quote=Junkyard ]I think we may have got off topic here folk

Yeah, nobody's mentioned that there won't be a currency union for several pages.

Back on track then.

So when we keep the pound,and take no debt and take the EU place,will England try to rejoin the EU?

As you were.

Yeah, nobody's mentioned that there won't be a currency union for several pages.

Yes, even the No campaign have stopped going on about that.

I saw my first UKOK car sticker today. On a white BMW that was tailgating, driving aggressively, then using a bus lane.

I'm not sure your persistent stereotyping of No voters is achieving anything other than reinforcing your own prejudice.

I was stating a fact. I'm sorry if that fact offends you 😉

I know a bunch of intelligent, articulate No voters - one is even a mate of Gordon Brown. We've had lots of sensible discussions about it.

I was stating a fact. I'm sorry if that fact offends you

It doesn't.

Just for balance, I saw my second UKOK car sticker just now - they must be breeding - and it was on a black Golf that was driven safely and courteously.

Ben just for balance the majority of Scots do not share your views on independence and do indeed think that the UK is OK.

Enough Scots are intelligent enough to know that sterling is not an asset and therefore are unlikely to be duped. This week rUK business came to a pretty clear conclusion as well The story (should be) dead and buried. But like Farage's falsehoods I am sure some will try to resurrect the BS before too long.

Scottish tennis oppo today with "F of S" as a ring tone. I would almost offer CU just to get ride of that awful tune. If you do get an iS please find a decent anthem. FoS sucks the spirit away.

Anything is better than the dirge that is God Save The Queen.

Another good point of iScotland - we could move the 6th verse of GStQ up to first 😉
I was surprised to find that FoS was only written in the 1970's, thought it was a lot more ancient than that.

Like "beastiality's best boys", FoS should have stayed in the rugby showers. Nowhere else. Then again swing low, sweet chariot should be the same as well. Two things (can't face using the word tunes/music for either) that should never be allowed to taint a rugby field again

Income inequality. As I have posted elsewhere the poor are much better off that they where 50, 100, 200 years ago. Housing, education, health service. Even on shorter term horizons look at home ownership or things like owning a car, or these days multiple cars. The top 1% is a very wide band, from someone (or a coup,e) earning £200k pa upto the billionaires like Peter Green or Abramovich. This is the key factor in the growing wealth of the rich, it's the wealth created and retained by these invididuals which distorts the figures. Also the "poor" are under pressure from globalisation (something which increasingly is impacting the middle income bracket), we don't have basic manufacturing anymore as it's much cheaper in Bangladesh or Vietnam. So how does the government address this, it's not by making the tax rate 50 or 60%

I see the Yes/No vote significantly impacted by the desire to have a left wing Government in an independent Scotland, I think voting Yes in September because you believe a left wing government is going to deliver a materially different society I think you are mistaken.

Scotland already has a materially different society - different legal system, different education system, different health service, different political outlook.

We want to keep those differences, and improve on them - we can't do that when all the control is in Westminster, which has very different priorities to ours.

You only have to have a look at how UKIP fares North and South of the border to understand the differences.

The control of those things does not lie with Westminster. How do you improve on differences? Making us more different perhaps?

The detailed control doesn't lie with Westminster - the control of the purse strings does. We still have austerity imposed upon us, policies like the bedroom tax, and of course the nuclear weapons.

OK I'd promised to stay away for 2 weeks, but this was too good not to share... 😆

[url= http://www.yesscotland.net/news/no-campaign-organiser-defects-yes ]BT organiser defects to YES[/url]

......the poor are much better off that they where 50, 100, 200 years ago. Housing, education, health service.

And the very wealthy are also much better off than they where 50, 100, 200 years ago with regards to housing, education, and health care. They live in a healthier environment with all the advantages of modern technology, education/knowledge, and modern health care.

So it turns out that it's still a huge advantage to be part of the 1% who own a huge proportion of the nation's wealth relative to their tiny size, and this proportion of wealth is as large today as it was a hundred years ago.

All the concessions which have been made over the last one hundred years through political and industrial struggles, in terms of social and welfare provisions, has consequentially not touched the wealth of the 1% who today own as much of the nation's wealth as they did a hundred years ago.

And yet despite all that they still want to roll back the welfare state and the hard won social provisions. It seems that their greed knows no bounds - having the same proportion of the nation's wealth as they had a hundred years ago just isn't enough, they still want more.

And judging by the attitude of many including some on here they'll get more. Whatever temporary setbacks the banking crises caused them short term.

As a society we have turned logic, commonsense, and economic justice, upside down, as we reward staggering levels of failure and incompetence with multimillion pound bonuses, golden handshakes and golden hellos, and we happily allow the super rich to fill their pockets and boots, while everyone else has to tighten their belts.

The power of marketing politics eh ?

That is right ernie all those rich and successful people should all stop being so rich and successful and then that means all of the money they would have got would go to the poor people instead because they would suddenly learn how to be successful. Those pesky middle classes might try to get their hands on the money though so we also need them to be less rich and successful as well to ensure that the money only goes to the poor. How about we ban education for all children and in one generation we will have a level playing field of idiots all as unsuccessful and poor as one another! At least the rich won't be rich any more.